Memorandum submitted by The Network
1. We are grateful for the extension to
the deadline for responses, but consider that, given the importance
of this Inquiry, the deadline is still too short. However, in
the time available, I would like to comment specifically about
the role of public libraries in tackling social exclusion/community
cohesion and the recruitment and training of library staff.
2. The Network has been in existence for
five years (and, in fact, under its previous name, "Social
Exclusion Action Planning Network", provided written evidence
to the 1999-2000 Inquiry).
We have 115 organisational members, primarily
local authorities, and 15 individual members, as well as working
in partnership with a number of key organisations (including DCMS,
MLA, The Reading Agency, the Laser Foundation).
The Network produces a monthly newsletter, pooling
good practice across libraries, archives and museums and drawing
on work in fields outside these (such as planning, sports, the
arts), and highlighting new documents of relevance (particularly
from the Government). The newsletter is distributed by email to
some 500 subscribers.
We run training courses and conferences, particularly
for library staff at all levels, on topics such as tackling social
exclusion, working with children and young people (including looked-after
young people), working with refugees and asylum-seekers, and providing
services for lesbians and gay men.
I also work on specific projects, and am just
completing some work, funded by the Paul Hamlyn Foundation, to
support library staff working with looked-after children (which
has also involved our working closely with DfES); and am completing
a report for the South East Museums, Libraries and Archives Council
on the potential role of public libraries in building community
cohesion.
The Network received some seed-funding from
the then Library and Information Commission and a year's grant
from the then Resource, but currently is not in receipt of any
grant-aid—we raise our income through subscriptions and
from the training courses and conferences.
3. Over the past year, I have run some 50
training courses for public library staff in England, Wales and
Scotland—this has provided me with first-hand knowledge
of the role and position of public libraries in tackling social
exclusion. As a starting point, it is worth stressing that there
is some extremely exciting and innovative work being developed,
particularly to target services to some of the hardest-to-reach
people in society (for example, looked-after children, Travellers,
refugees and asylum-seekers), and some libraries have made specific
headway in mainstreaming such provision (rather than relying on
short-term, external funding). To give just one example, the "Welcome
to Your Library" project, funded by the Paul Hamlyn Foundation
and led by the London Library Development Agency, has created
real momentum in developing services for refugees and asylum-seekers
in five London boroughs, and two authorities (Newham and Camden)
have obtained additional funding to enable this work to continue.
There are also good examples of strong partnerships
being developed, for example via Sure Start (which has proved
really effective in creating a milieu in which libraries can work
with other local authority departments, voluntary and statutory
agencies and the local community).
Work to implement the actions developed by MLA
in response to Framework for the future is also well under-way
in many library authorities, and will be enhanced once the current
developments (eg the National Offers) are rolled out.
4. In terms of working with looked-after
children and young people, there have been some very exciting
projects developed over the last five years or so, and some of
these have also been mainstreamed to ensure that they continue.
Work has developed to support young people in foster care and
in residential settings, in libraries and in the community, and
has included reading and information provision, gifts of books,
study support, specific activities, training for library and care
staff. Further information about some of these is available on
our Website at: www.seapn.org.uk.
5. However, again based on my training experience,
there is a number of issues that still need to be resolved. These
include:
— Lack of resources: whilst some library
authorities have been successful in attracting additional funding
(either external or internal), many have not, and, whilst they
are keen to develop services to meet the needs of people who are
socially excluded, they cannot, at the same time, maintain the
same levels of service to existing users.
— Training: in addition, there may
not be sufficient resources to allow staff to be released for
training/development, and, whilst there are some types of training
that can be conducted "as-and-when" online, emotive
topics (such as tackling social exclusion) should not be dealt
with in this way. One of the key barriers to take-up of service
is staff attitudes, and there clearly needs to be a major investment
in training and retraining library staff.
— Recruitment: there also needs to
be a thorough and urgent overhaul of job requirements to ensure
that the right sorts of staff are recruited. Related to this and
to the resources issue is the level of pay that front-line staff
particularly receive—libraries cannot compete in the job
market to attract people (particularly young people) of the right
calibre.
— Image: I am hopeful that the new
marketing plan (part of Framework for the future) will go some
way to addressing the appalling image that public libraries and
their staff have.
— Tensions between central and local
government: whilst I recognise that many decisions need to be
made by local politicians, nevertheless this proves less than
helpful when they are opposed to tackling social exclusion, for
example (or to some socially excluded groups, such as refugees
and asylum-seekers). To take the line in such circumstances that
decisions about targeting resources and prioritising library services
must be made locally will not help library service managers.
— Lack of communications: whilst senior
managers are (mostly) au fait with the current Government agenda
for tackling social exclusion and the Shared Priorities, many
front-line staff are not. This is partly the result of lack of
time, and partly the result of poor communications across services.
— Rules and regulations: many public
libraries are now urgently reassessing their procedures (eg for
joining), but this process needs to be taken up everywhere.
— Charges: I think that it is unfortunate
that many library service budgets are structured in such a way
that they are unable to reduce (or remove altogether) charges,
which are proven to be amongst the greatest barriers to take-up
of service, without making parallel cuts to expenditure.
6. In relation to looked-after children
and young people, we would like to see the following:
— Training for all care staff and foster
carers in reading and using books with children.
— Provision of books and other materials
in every residential home.
— Support for foster carers to provide
books and other materials.
— Provision for public libraries to
develop strong and long-lasting links with looked-after children
and young people.
— Improving access to books included
in the new standards for foster carers.
— Involvement of DCMS in the new cross-departmental
looked-after children's board (DfES-led).
7. Finally, on a broader note, I am interested
in the role that public libraries could play in building community
cohesion.
However, to date, the definitions provided by
Government and the LGA appear to allow for all sorts of work to
be defined as community cohesion when, in fact, it is not! For
example, in the latest LGA guidance, there are lots of examples
of small-scale, short-term projects, and work that is actually
about tackling social exclusion (rather than building community
cohesion), and it is disappointing that the definitions are not
being used consistently. If one goes back to the definition suggested
by Trevor Phillips of community cohesion being to do with the
"fractures" in society, and this is allied with the
definition that came out of the Cantle Report, then this is about
something far bigger than many of the examples cited.
Given this, it is therefore difficult at present
to see where public libraries might fit in—perhaps this
Inquiry could seek clarification as to the real meaning of "community
cohesion" and give a new direction to this work for public
libraries.
8. I hope that this evidence is clear and
helpful. I would be pleased to give any clarifications if required.
19 November 2004
|
